24961_07_Myllyla.pdf
The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
YRJÖ MYLLYLÄ
Myllylä, Yrjö (2006). The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi
panels. Fennia 184: 1, pp. 59–73. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010.
This paper evaluates the development of the socio-spatial structures and geo-
economic position of Murmansk Oblast up the year 2025. The study applies
strong prospective trends and industrial cluster approaches in analysis and inter-
pretation and it interprets the results in the context of regional development
theories.
The Delphi method is applied for analysing the potential development paths
of Murmansk Oblast. Two Delphi panels were set up in 2005. The panel data in
this article consist of the answers of 77 persons including pilot interview. The
experts in the Murmansk panel are from Murmansk Oblast, the ones in the Mos-
cow panel are from Moscow and St. Petersburg, and those in the international
panel come from Finland, Norway and Great Britain.
The clusters of transportation and energy will be the most probable growth
sectors in Murmansk Oblast during 2005–25. According to the expert panels the
three most important strong prospective main trends influencing socio-econom-
ic development in Murmansk Oblast constitute the potential of logistics and
transport, the impacts of new technology and globalisation. From the viewpoint
of development theories the development of Murmansk Oblast seems to rely
very much on the argumentation of the resources and physical environment and
supply-side theories.
Yrjö Myllylä, c/o Oy Aluekehitys RD, Meriusva 5, FI-02320 Espoo, Finland. E-
mail: yrjo.myllyla@rdmarketinfo.net.
Background
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the eco-
nomic integration of Murmansk Oblast to the glo-
bal market has created new opportunities not only
in relation to the utilisation of natural resources in
the region, but also regarding the development of
knowledge-based industries, such as information
technology, environmental business, tourism and
logistical services. Developing of Murmansk Ob-
last for instance the transport and logistics infra-
structure system in a rational manner requires an
assessment of the future population development
and economic conditions of the region. The futures
studies approach provides methods to develop this
assessment.
Murmansk Oblast belongs to the Northwest
Russian governmental region. It is also a part of the
Barents Euro-Arctic co-operation area. The popu-
lation is concentrated to Murmansk as well as to
some resource communities (Rautio & Andreev
2005) (Fig. 1). There are several military bases in
the area. During recent years the economical
growth has been slower than in the rest of Russia.
Mining and the metal refining are the biggest
branches of production. There has been fairly little
new production in the area. However there has
been an increase in services and lately also in the
construction sector (Didyk et al. 2005). The opin-
ions concerning the future of Murmansk Oblast
have varied over the years. Very different opinions
have been presented concerning the development
of Murmansk Oblast seen either as regressing pe-
riphery, or as a junction of traffic and industry, as
well as an export channel of the Northwest Rus-
sian oil to the world market (Kauppala 1998; Lau-
sala & Valkonen 1999; Oldberg 2000; Filippov et
al. 2003; Brunstad et al. 2004).
Murmansk Oblast has to be examined not only
as a part of the Barents region and Northern Eu-
rope, but also as a part of a global system. Russia
is integrated in global trade especially through the
60 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
export of energy over recent years and this fact
strengthens the role of the Barents Sea and Mur-
mansk Oblast (Tykkyläinen 2003b: 172; Brunstad
et al. 2004).
Objectives – evaluation of the needs of
development of socio-economic
development and logistics
The objective of this article is based on specialists’
interviews to analyse the development of the Mur-
mansk Oblast and factors that have an impact on
the development during a period extending until
the year 2025. The research is based on the utilisa-
tion of the methods used in futures studies as well
as geographical theory. The aim is to create prob-
able pictures of the future taking into considera-
tion the changing factors possibly that make an
impact on the development.
In this article the economical, social and logisti-
cal development of the future in Murmansk Oblast
is outlined as part of the Russian geoeconomy and
is based on the interview material of the special-
ists’ panel consisting of actors in Murmansk Oblast
and the previous analysis of the development of
the area as well as on the interview material of the
specialists’ panel consisting of the actors in Mos-
cow and St. Petersburg and the international panel,
mainly consisting of Finns. The article gives an
overall picture of the opinions of these three Del-
phi panels concerning the future development of
Murmansk Oblast and creates starting points to
build more exact scenarios for further investiga-
tions.
Taking these premises as starting points this re-
search aims at evaluating the economic structure
of the region, particularly in relation to the indus-
trial structure, population, and logistics infrastruc-
ture. The point of the analysis is that appropriate
planning for future infrastructure in regard to logis-
tical needs is impossible without a well-grounded
assessment of the region’s future population struc-
ture and economic conditions.
Theory framework – strong prospective
trends and clusters approach
The trend approach of the strong prospective
trends (SPT) belonging to futures studies forms the
most important theoretical viewpoint. Central to
the concept of futures studies is that it is not pos-
sible to predict the future only on the basis of past
Fig. 1. Population of Mur-
mansk Oblast is concentrat-
ed in Murmansk, mining and
industrial localities and lo-
calities nearby military bases.
Data source of urban popu-
lation: Murmansk region in
figures 2004.
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 61The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
developments. A strong prospective trend is a fu-
ture trend or way of development which is based
on the fact that there is (e.g. statistical time series)
showing the existence of a trend and that the ex-
perts who evaluate this trend agree that the trend
will continue in the future. In practice, the SPT
concept means the same as the commonly used
mega trend concept, but is a more grounded sci-
entific argumentation (Slaughter 1996; Toivonen
2004: 6–10).
Strong prospective trends may lead to different
kind of futures (Fig. 2). Prospective trends can re-
late to phenomena that have a long history or they
could be phenomena in which a certain direction
of development has been detected only lately. Pro-
spective trends can continue in the future along
their current direction or the trend may break off
and lead to a different kind of future from how it
could be deduced from today’s development
(Toivonen 2004: 10). There are weak signals whose
current appearances may be the reason for the dis-
continuation of the trend. Weak signals may with
time become stronger, turn out to be significant
phenomena and develop into even strong trends.
A strong trend can also emerge when several weak
signals combine with one another.
The most important objective aimed for is to
recognise the key SPT trends in Murmansk Oblast
because based on these it is possible to later on
make other evaluations concerning the develop-
ment in the area.
The trends influence the development of the
clusters in the area. The word cluster normally
means bunch. In this context it stands for a co-op-
eration network consisting of companies and other
actors such as research institutes and schools.
There are companies in a cluster who produce
their products for the market (e.g., Porter 1990).
These “locomotive companies” commanding the
market are normally big companies – but there
may be significant differences between the lines of
business activities. In particular the research and
educational sector form an important group of ac-
tors because the success of the clusters depends
more and more on know-how. The finance sector
forms an important group of actors in the cluster.
Clustering in the form described above is called
vertical clustering. In horizontal clustering learn-
ing and creating of innovations form an important
reason for enterprises and other activities to find
their ways closer to each other (Malmberg &
Maskell 2002: 438).
Especially the vertical clusters manifest them-
selves and materialise in geographical spaces,
which require the analysis of transport infrastruc-
ture. In this research nine clusters have been se-
lected to be more closely examined (Table 1). The
objective has been to examine existing strong clus-
ters and so called rising clusters. Data on the struc-
ture of the economics of the area as well as pilot
interviews have been used as instruments.
It has been intentional to collect the clusters in
sufficiently big groups of industry in order to make
data handling and using the method of specialist
interviews possible. Mining and metal refining,
food stuffs, transportation and logistical services
form the existing clusters most clearly. Particularly
tourism, ICT clusters, environmental clusters, wel-
fare clusters and partly also security clusters can
all be considered as rising clusters. In the energy
cluster there are existing activities (as electrical
production) as well as rising activities (possibly
e.g. gas production).
Finding key actors, who have a strong influence
on the above-mentioned development of Mur-
mansk Oblast, are the most important challenge.
The interview data and a cluster-based approach
are used to identify those actors with the greatest
influence over the region’s development.
Fig. 2. Model of a strong prospective trend (Original source:
Toivonen 2004: 10). Published with the permission of Marja
Toivonen.
62 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
Fig. 3. Causality connec-
tions. Driving force actors
have an impact on the crea-
tion of the SPT trends. The
SPT trends may be grouped
in main trends. SPT trends
have an impact on the devel-
opment of the clusters. The
cluster appears in geographi-
cal space and the logistics
play an important role in its
development. The actors
make the decisions in the de-
velopment of the clusters
and logistics on which the
trends also make an impact.
The causality between economic and social fu-
tures as well as anticipating of the logistical devel-
opment needs in Murmansk Oblast are outlined in
Fig. 3. Behind the strong prospective trends (SPT
sub trends and SPT main trends) there are driving
forces, i.e. factors, which are making an impact on
the development of Murmansk Oblast; for example
the growth of the world economy, the growth of the
world population, the unstable situation in the Mid-
dle East (especially the impact on the oil price), the
transition process in Russia among others. Strong
prospective trends have an impact on the clusters.
For example the oil price gives a boost to a rising
energy cluster based on oil in the area. The clusters
on the other hand are geographical phenomena
and hence logistical development actions are need-
ed in order to have a favourable development of
these. Both the development of the clusters and the
development of their logistics require decision-
making on different levels.
Methodology and data
The policy Delphi method
The Delphi-method is the most well-known meth-
od used in future research based on interviews
with an expert panel. Typical features for the meth-
od is that there are two or more interview rounds,
and in between them a feedback summary direct-
ed at the participators in the panel, as well as, ano-
nymity (e.g., Sackman 1975: 9; Kuusi 1999: 74).
By using this method opinions can be expressed
without others being able to identify whose opin-
ions they are. In this case the arguments in the an-
swers will play a central role as the participators
assess other participators’ answers. This has proven
to be the strength of the method. The structure of
the material presented in this paper as well as the
research is shown in Table 1.
The Delphi method is rather a form of a devel-
oped theme interview than an opinion survey
(see e.g., Kuusi 1999: 77, 80). Therefore, the cri-
teria concerning the amount of samples and sta-
tistical tests which are assumed for opinion re-
search should not be required for this material
and handling of it as assumed by Sackman (1975:
26). When analysing the material in the future the
so called policy Delphi (Tyroff 1975) tradition
should be emphasised, where the interest groups
and the differences between their opinions and
causes are recognised instead of trying to reach
some common view for the whole panel or the
panels in the conventional Delphi-application
way.
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 63The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
Table 1. The grouping of specialists participating in the material of the article based on their competence and interest. Here
‘competence’ refers to special experience in clustering and ‘interest’ actors in clusters. Panels interview rounds and number
of respondents: Murmansk panel consists of pilot interview (10 persons), Delphi-panel’s 1st round (25 persons), Delphi-
panel’s 2nd round (19 respondents); Moscow-panel consists of Delphi-panel 2nd round interview (6 respondents) and inter-
national panel consists of Delphi-panel 2nd round interview (17 respondents).
INTEREST
/Actors in cluster
COMPETENCE
Companies Finance and
other support
service
Research and
training
Administration Other /
Independent
Sum
M
u
rm
an
sk
M
o
sc
o
w
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
M
u
rm
an
sk
M
o
sc
o
w
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
M
u
rm
an
sk
M
o
sc
o
w
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
M
u
rm
an
sk
M
o
sc
o
w
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
M
u
rm
an
sk
M
o
sc
o
w
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
M
u
rm
an
sk
M
o
sc
o
w
In
te
rn
at
io
n
al
Energy/Cluster 3 1 2 2 3 2 8 2 3
Mining and metal
processing
3 1 1 1 1 5 10 2
Transportation and
logistical services
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 4
Food 5 1 1 6 1
Tourism 2 1 1 2 3 3
ICT 3 1 2 2 2 7 3
Environment 2 2 1 4 1
Welfare 2 1 1 1 2 6 1
Safety 1 1
Others 4 2 4 2
Sum 23 5 6 6 4 2 12 4 9 6 54 6 17
The interviewees – the interest and
competence of the participants of the panel
have an impact on the opinions
In choosing the participants of the panel the com-
petence and interest of the participants in the
theme of the research must be recognised. For ex-
ample Osmo Kuusi has stated that the opinions of
the participants are bound to these two dimen-
sions (Kuusi 1999: 193–205). In the research nine
different clusters formed the competence alterna-
tives of the participants of the panel (Table 1). En-
terprise, financing and related supporting services,
research, education and administration are points
of interest. The so called group of independent
forms an important group of their own. For exam-
ple the representatives of the civic organisation
belong to this group. The international group is in
its entity independent of its interest because at this
moment the income of the participants could not
be considered depending on Murmansk Oblast. In
the pilot interview the participants were asked to
suggest participants from above interests of com-
petence.
Scenarios
Strong prospective trends (SPT)
Based on pilot interviews in the 1st round of the
Delphi-panel there were 75 different deductively
derived strong future trends created as proto trends
there. To the 2nd interview round 27 sub trends
with strongest for support from the specialists were
selected. Evaluated sub trends and their grouping
into main trends I–V and a tentative driving forces
analysis in the Delphi-panels 2nd interview round
are shown in Table 2.
In this paper the results are handled on the main
trend level. The respondents are grouped in differ-
ent panels according to their viewpoint. There are
three panels: the Murmansk panel, the Moscow
panel, and the International panel. The Murmansk
64 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
Table 2. Evaluated sub trends and their grouping into main trends I–V and a tentative driving forces analysis in the Delphi
panels 2nd interview round.
DRIVING FORCES SPT SUB TRENDS SPT MAIN TRENDS
Connections of the Murmansk Area 1 Development of transportation technology
I Technological
Development
2 Development of information and communication
technology
Deepening of co-operation with rest
of Europe
3 Development of energy technology
4 Increase in number of small enterprises
Degree of corruption and economic risks 5 Increase of information and communication flow
II Logistical flows
6 Increase of transportation in mining and metal
industry
Development of energy prices 7 Increase of oil transit
8 Increase of gas transit
Growth of world economy 9 Increase of coal transit
10 Increase of container traffic
Historical factors / traditions of the
Soviet Union and Transit process in
Russia
11 Increase of capital and financing flows
12 The expansion of EU and deepening of the integra-
tion
III Globalisation
Natural resources of Murmansk and
Barents Area
13 Increase of traffic and trafficability in the north-west
Passage
14 Increase of domestic electricity price (liberation of
energy markets)
Old fashioned education / anticipation 15 Increase of the international oil market price
16 Increase of domestic price on oil and oil products
Policy of small enterprises 17 Increase of Russian economy
18 Increase of political and economical co-operation
Power politics in Russia (e.g. Oligarchs
in Kremlin)
19 Increase and westernisation of individual values
IV Value based
development
20 Increase in openness
Role of various forms of energy and
EU’s energy policy
21 Strengthening of environmental values
22 Increase of personal welfare
Situation in the Middle East 23 Increased risk of environmental disaster (oil,
nuclear)
24 Decrease of the population
V Development of
socio-economy of
the population
Time / corrosion / nuclear waste 25 Continuation of migration to economical centres
26 Change in the structure of population (ageing
population)
Threat of terrorism 27 Increase in income level
28 A positive development of world market price on
metals and apatite
VI Other, what?
Word politics of USA and Russia and
USA-Russia relations
29 Increase of importance of the geopolitical position
in the Murmansk area
panel is divided into three councils that represent
existing, rising, and independent clusters. The ba-
sic assumption is that the information given by the
participators of the panel depends on their inter-
ests (Kuusi 1999: 79, 193). Based on the panels
and the councils different opinions about main
factors influencing development can be created as
they are presented in Table 3.
The most important SPT trends influencing in
the beginning of the 21th century
Today the trends that make an impact on the eco-
nomic development in Murmansk Oblast are
somewhat varying between the respondent group
(Table 3). The Murmansk panel as a whole empha-
sises in the first place the technological develop-
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 65The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
Table 3. The impact of the main trends on the economical development in the Murmansk Area in the beginning of 2000 and
the strengthening of the trends until 2025. The numbers are the mean values of the scores given by the panel members.
Questions
SCENARIO
PANEL
/Council
MAIN TREND
Q 1.2 What is your opinion on the significance of the following trends especially in the economic
development of Murmansk Oblast?1
Q 1.3 How do you expect the trend to change by the year 2025?2
SCEN 1 SCEN 1 A SCEN 1 B SCEN 1 C SCEN 2 SCEN 3
Murmansk
panel: all
respondents
Murmansk
panel, council
1., representa-
tives of the
existing
clusters
Murmansk
panel, council
2., representa-
tives of the
rising clusters
Murmansk
panel, council
3., representa-
tives of the
independent
clusters
Moscow panel International
panel
average3 average average average average average
Q 1.2 Q 1.3 Q 1.2 Q 1.3 Q 1.2 Q 1.3 Q 1.2 Q 1.3 Q 1.2 Q 1.3 Q 1.2 Q 1.3
2005 2025 2005 2025 2005 2025 2005 2025 2005 2025 2005 2025
I Technological
development
3.61 3.97 3.45 4.00 3.71 4.04 2.75 4.00 4.01 4.17 3.41 4.38
II Logistical flows 3.61 4.06 3.29 4.00 4.01 3.96 2.07 4.50 3.70 3.69 3.13 4.04
III Globalisation 3.47 4.36 3.19 5.00 3.73 4.28 3.21 4.14 3.79 3.85 3.27 4.16
IV Value based trends 3.03 3.35 3.13 3.00 2.96 3.25 3.20 3.80 2.90 3.00 3.09 4.00
V Socio-economical
development of the
population
3.39 3.34 3.48 3.75 3.39 3.60 3.13 2.50 3.44 3.42 3.42 3.61
1 Scale for the questions 1.2: Impact value of trends 1 = very small, 2 = small, 3 = moderate, 4 = strong, 5 = very strong.
2 Scale for the questions 1.3: 1 = decreases significantly, 2 = decreases slightly, 3 = remains unchanged, 4 = increases
slightly, 5 = increases significantly.
3 Note that average values should be considered with certain reservations as they are based on the answers of only a few
sporadically chosen persons especially concerning the council of the Murmansk panel.
ment, then the logistical flows, and finally globali-
sation as the acting main trends. The international
panel, which in this respect can be considered
representing also an independent view, emphasis-
es the socio-economic development of the popu-
lation together with the technological develop-
ment and the globalisation trend in the third place.
There is a sub trend that belongs to the main trend
of globalisation and that is the increase of the in-
ternational oil market price, which has a big im-
pact on economic development in the Murmansk
region. According to the Murmansk Delphi panel
this trend will continue and be strengthened in the
future.
From the answers we can draw the conclusion
that the different groups at this moment agree on
the importance of the value-based trends and so-
cio-economic development trends. However con-
cerning the other trends the distribution is more
widerly dispersed (Fig. 4). Similarly in the main
trends the distribution is also seen in the so called
sub trends of the main trends when comparing the
responses from the various respondent groups.
When interpreting these results one should bear in
mind that the number of respondents in the vari-
ous groups is small.
The development of SPT trends up to the year
2025
The panels and their councils share the same view-
point concerning those three trends that are most
likely to strengthen by the year 2025: globalisa-
tion, logistical flows and technological develop-
ment are the most strengthening trends. However,
there are some differences in how they rank the
order of relative importance between these trends
(Table 3). The average values should be considered
with a certain reservation as the amount of re-
66 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
1
2
3
4
5
I Technolocal
Development
II Logistical flows III Globalisation IV Value based
development
V Development of
socio-economy of
the population
Trend
Im
pa
ct
of
tr
en
d,
va
lu
e
1–
5 Scen 1
Scen 1 A
Scen 1 B
Scen 1 C
Scen 2
Scen 3
Fig. 4. Impact of the main
trends on the development of
the Murmansk Area as sur-
veyed in 2005 per respond-
ent groups / scenarios. (Scale
1 = very small, 2 = small, 3 =
moderate, 4 = strong, 5 =
very strong.)
spondents is very small. Most attention should be
paid to the reasons given for the opinions.
In examining the strengthening of the trends by
the year 2025 on the main trend level, it seems
that the main trend of the technological develop-
ment has the smallest distribution. Concerning
globalisation, the opinions are very near to each
other among the various respondent groups. The
globalisation trend of scenario 1 A (representatives
for the existing clusters in the Murmansk panel) is
emphasised the most, but the response is based on
a single response at this point. Concerning the
main trend of socio-economic development the
distribution also is narrow, the responses of the so
called independent respondent group make an ex-
ception but for the aforementioned group the re-
sponse is based on a single opinion. The impact on
1
2
3
4
5
I Technolocal
Development
II Logistical flows III Globalisation IV Value based
development
V Development of
socio-economy of
the population
Trend
S
tr
en
gt
he
ni
ng
of
th
e
m
ai
n
tr
en
ds
,v
al
ue
1–
5
Scen 1
Scen 1 A
Scen 1 B
Scen 1 C
Scen 2
Scen 3 Fig. 5. Strengthening of the
main trends that make an im-
pact on the development of
the Murmansk Area by the
year 2025 per respondent
group/scenario. (Scale 1 =
decreases significantly, 2 =
decreases slightly, 3 = re-
mains unchanged, 4 = in-
creases slightly, 5 = increases
significantly.)
the future of the value-based trends clearly seems
to have the widest variation.
The deviation of the sub trends mainly follows
the distribution of the main trends (Fig. 5). The de-
viation can most clearly be seen in the responses
by the representatives of the existing clusters in the
Murmansk panel and in the responses of the inde-
pendents in the Murmansk panel. However, the
above mentioned responses are based on a single
one or the responses of a very few which explains
the distribution. In spite of this fact, in the analysis
that will follow special attention will be paid to the
argumentation of the responses from these
groups.
The rise of the international oil market price is a
central sub trend of the globalisation main trend
which has an impact on the economical develop-
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 67The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
ment of Murmansk Oblast. The oil price has been
rising steeply from the beginning of 2000 (British
Petroleum 2005). Specialists explain that the rea-
son is the growth in the world economy, in which
China plays a central role, and the unstable situa-
tion in the Middle East.
The impact of trends on the development of
clusters
The trends or actually the driving forces behind
them make an impact on the development of the
clusters according to the schematic model shown
in Fig. 6. Certain trends have an impact on certain
clusters. The impact of the trends can facilitate the
development of the cluster, measured with the
turnover of an enterprise or with employment. The
development of some trends could be obstructing
the development of certain clusters (e.g. the age-
ing of the population).
The figure is schematic and the SPT trends illus-
trate the acting SPT main trends. For example if we
think that the transportation and logistical cluster
forms a growing cluster, following main trends
could be picked out which most clearly support
the growth of the cluster: STP I = the development
of technology (sub trend e.g. development of trans-
portation technology). SPT II = logistical flows (e.g.
the growth of oil transit), SPT III = globalisation
(sub trend e.g. rise of oil price). Globalisation and
development of value-based trends (SPT IV) or the
socio-economic development of the population
(SPT V) can have an decreasing effect on some
other cluster or part of it. In practise there are
trends which are supporting and counteracting the
development of the same cluster. The total impact
of the trends on the development of the clusters
can vary between the groups of respondents. The
differences could in this case be explained by the
interest of the groups of respondents to emphasise
certain driving force actors laying behind the
trends.
In Table 4 the views of the participators in each
panel are presented in order to describe how the
various trends are making an impact on the differ-
ent clusters. The analysis is based on the answers
from the panelists. There the participators were
asked to choose, as far as the main trends were con-
cerned, which are the three most important clusters
whose development the trends facilitate most.
Which clusters were then emphasised? When
looking at this moment at the acting three main
trends by respondent groups, one can make the
following statement. According to the Murmansk
panel the trends have the biggest impact on the
clusters of transportation and logistical services as
well as mining and metal processing.
According to the Moscow panel the trends act-
ing at this moment give most support to the devel-
Fig. 6. The impact of SPT
trends on the development of
the cluster.
68 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
Table 4. The impact of the main trends on clusters per scenario or respondent group. The clusters which got most, second
most and third most mentions are divided with semicolon (;) from each other. If the logistical development object has got
only one mention it has been placed within brackets. Explanations: En = Energy, Min = Mining and metal processing, Log =
Transportation and logistical services, Food = Food, Tou = Tourism, ICT = Information and communication technology, Wel
= Welfare, Env = Environment, Saf = Safety.
Question 2.4
SCENARIO
PANEL
/ Council
MAIN TREND
/Sub trends
Which cluster development in Murmansk Oblast area is facilitated by the SPT trends the most? Choose
for each trend the three most important clusters, the development of which are supported by the trend.
SCEN 1 SCEN 1 A SCEN 1 B SCEN 1 C SCEN 2 SCEN 3
Murmansk
panel, all
respondents
Murmansk
panel,
council 1,
representatives
of the existing
clusters
Murmansk
panel,
council 2,
representatives
of the rising
clusters
Murmansk
panel,
council 3,
independent
respondents
Moscow panel International
panel
clusters clusters clusters clusters clusters clusters
I Technological
Development
Log;En,ICT;
Min.
En,Min,Log;ICT;. Log;ICT;En. Log;.;. En,Log;Min;. En;Min,Log;ICT.
II Logistical flows Log;Min;Wel. (Min,Log,Env;.;.) Log;Wel; (Min,
ICT.)
(En,Min,Log;.;.) En,Min,Log;
(Wel;.)
En,Log;Min;.
III Globalisation Tou;Min;Log. Min;(En,Log,
Tou;.)
Tou;Min;. (Log,ICT;.;.) Tou, Log;. En;Log;Min.
IV Value based
trends
Env;Tou;ICT,
Wel.
(Tou,ICT,Wel;.;.) Env;Tou;. (Tou,ICT,Wel,
Env;.;.)
Food,Env,Saf;.;. ICT,Wel.;Env;.
V The socio-
economical
development of
the population
En;Log,Wel;
Min,Tou,Env,
Saf.
Wel;(En,Log,
Saf;.)
Tou;.;. En;(Min,Log,
Env;.)
En,Min,Log,Wel,
Env,Saf;.;.
Wel;Food;Min,
Log.
The decision-
making in the
clusters
Federal,
Regional and
International.
Regional
and Federal.
Federal,
Regional,
Local.
Regional,
Local,
Federal.
Federal,
Regional, Local,
International.
opment of the clusters of transportation and logis-
tical services, then energy, and mining and metal
processing. In the future the strengthening trends
will also support the above clusters most clearly.
According to the international panel the trends
that are making the biggest impact at this moment
support the clusters of transportation and logistical
services mining and metal processing as well as
the development of the energy cluster. In the future
the trends also support the same clusters most
clearly.
As a conclusion, it can be stated that all panels
and councils share the opinion that the existing
and future trends will have the biggest impact on
the clusters of transportation and logistical servic-
es. Also mining and the industry related to metal
processing seem to form an important target for
the impact of the trends with the exception of the
council 3, i.e., the group of independents of the
Murmansk panel. The impact of the trends on the
energy clusters comes up, according to this analy-
sis, most clearly in council 1 of the Murmansk
panel, i.e., according to the opinion by representa-
tives of the existing clusters, as well as, according
to the opinion of the international panel and the
Moscow panel. The representatives of the rising
and independent clusters emphasise most clearly
the impact on the ITC as being the object of the
trends.
Level of decision making in the clusters
The members in the panels evaluated the impor-
tance of the various decision-making levels in the
development of the clusters. The levels of decision
making were the local level, the regional level, the
federal level, and the international level. On each
level there could be decision makers as well from
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 69The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
the public as the enterprise level, of which the most
important ones were tried also to be recognised.
After all respondent groups and all nine clusters
in the study were examined and compared, one
could draw the conclusion that decision-making
on the federal and regional level is emphasised in
the development of the clusters. However, council
3 of the Murmansk panel (independent respond-
ents) and the Moscow panel emphasise the impor-
tance of the local level to some extent in addition
to these. If the comparison is made cluster by clus-
ter it appears that on the federal level the decision-
making is emphasised more strongly in energy
than in any of the other levels compared. On the
local level the development of especially the wel-
fare cluster as well as the food cluster and security
seem to make a big impact.
Logistical development needs
Members in the panels evaluate the most impor-
tant logistical development objects in each cluster.
There were all together ten logistical development
objects: railway connection and traffic, harbours
and harbour activities, roads and road transporta-
tion, oil pipe and maintenance services, gas pipe
and maintenance services, electricity transfer lines,
ICT networks and services, air traffic and services,
and passenger traffic on road as well as border
crossing services (Table 5).
When those main trends that also make the
strongest impact are taken into consideration and
the clusters supported by the main trends, i.e.
transportation and logistical services cluster, min-
ing and metal processing cluster, and the energy
cluster, as a summary for the transportation and
logistical services cluster, that the answers from
various groups as a whole railway connections
and traffic as well as the harbours got most of the
mentions followed by road connections to devel-
op.
In developing the transportation and logistical
services clusters the Murmansk panel is of the
opinion that the most important object will be rail-
way connections and harbours, roads and the pas-
senger traffic on the roads coming next. According
to the Moscow panel the railway connections and
ICT networks are the most important ones after the
harbours. The international panel considers for the
first the harbours and the railway connections and
traffic, and for the second the roads and ICT net-
works as the most important objects of develop-
ment.
In developing of the mining and metal process-
ing clusters, as a summary of the most important
logistical development projects in the various pan-
els, the railway connections and harbours are the
most emphasised ones and are among the two
most important objects of logistical development
in all respondent groups.
The most important oil and gas fields in North-
west Russia, present and planned oil and gas pipes
as well as harbours are shown in the map (Fig. 7).
In the map the role of Murmansk Oblast is seen in
the energy transportation and export of the whole
Northwest Russia. Murmansk being a not frozen
Atlantic harbour which can be reached globally
from the rest of Europe and USA will play a central
role in the supply.
All panels emphasise an oil pipeline for the de-
velopment of the energy cluster as belonging to
the two most important projects and two panels
out of three chose the construction of an electricity
transfer net. According to the Murmansk panel the
development of the electricity transfer network
and the oil pipeline are the two most important
projects for the development of the energy cluster.
The Moscow panel as well emphasises the elec-
tricity transfer network followed by railway con-
nections and traffic and oil pipeline as the most
important objects to be developed. The interna-
tional panel considers the oil pipeline for the first,
and then the harbours and gas pipe as the most
important objects to be developed.
When it comes to the level of decision-making
in logistics, the panels seem to share the same
opinion about the development of the three cho-
sen clusters supported by the main trends. They
consider the federal level and the regional level to
be the two most important levels of decision-mak-
ing. The importance of the local and international
level of decision-making in transportation and lo-
gistics is also stated in the Murmansk and the inter-
national panels’ views.
Testing of explanatory theories
The material produced and analysed in the re-
search can be contextualized with geographical
theories according to Fig. 8 and at the same time
evaluate how well the theories function in the light
of the material. According to the figure the driving
forces impact on the formation of the strong pro-
spective trends, so called SPT trends (e.g. the
growth of the world economy and the unstable
70 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
Table 5. Logistical development measures per cluster and per scenario and respondent group. The logistical objects of de-
velopment which got most and second most mentions are divided with semicolon (;) from each other. If the logistical devel-
opment object has got only one mention it has been placed within brackets.
Question 4.1 Which are the most important logistical development items in developing the clusters? Choose from each
cluster the two most important logistical development items in order to create the cluster in such a way
that you would prefer and consider possible.
SCENARIO SCEN 1 SCEN 1 A SCEN 1 B SCEN 1 C SCEN 2 SCEN 3
PANEL
/council
CLUSTER
Murmansk-
panel, all
answers
Murmansk panel
council1,
representatives
of the existing
clusters
Murmansk panel
council 2,
representatives
of the rising
clusters
Murmansk
panel
council 3,
independent
respondents
Moscow panel International
panel
Logistical
development
item1
Logistical
development
item
Logistical
development
item
Logistical
development
item
Logistical
development
item
Logistical
development
item
1 Energy Electr.;Oil pipe;
Railway,Ports,
Gas pipe.
Oil pipe;
(Roads,Electr.).
Electr.;Railway,
Ports;Gas pipe.
(Oil pipe,Gas
pipe,Electr.;.)
Electr.;Railway,
Oil pipe.
Oil pipe;
Ports,Gas pipe.
2 Mining and
metal
Railway,Ports;. Railway;(Ports,Oil
pipe,Gas pipe).
Ports;Railway. (Railway,
Ports;.)
Railway;Ports,
Electr..
Railway;Ports,
Roads.
3 Transportation
and logistical
services
Railway,Ports;
Roads,Pass traff..
Ports;(Railway). Railway,Roads,
Pass traff.;Ports.
(Railway,
Ports;.)
Railway,ICT
netw.;Ports.
Ports;Railway;
Roads, ICT
netw..
4 Food (Railway,Ports,
Roads,ICT netw.,
Border:.)
(ICT netw.). Railway,Ports,
Roads,Border;.
– (Pass traff.,
Border;.)
Ports,Roads;
Railway.
5 ICT ICT netw.;Electr.
Border.
(ICT
netw.,Border;.)
ICT netw.;Ports. (ICT netw.,
Border,.)
ICT netw.;Electr.. ICT
netw.;Border;
Electr..
6 Tourism Air traffic;
Roads,Pass traff..
(Roads;.) Air traffic;Pass
traff.;Roads.
– Ports,Pass traff.;
Railway,Air traffic.
Pass traff.,Border;
Air traffic.
7 Welfare Oil pipe;Ports. (Railway;.) Oil pipe;Ports. (Ports,Oil
pipe;.)
Railway,Ports,
Roads;Oil pipe,
Gas pipe, Air
traffic, Pass traff..
Pass traff.;ICT
netw..
8 Environment Oil pipe;Gas
pipe.
(Border;.) Oil pipe;Gas
pipe.
(Oil pipe;.) Oil pipe,Gas
pipe; Railway,
Ports,ICT netw..
Oil pipe;Gas
pipe.
9 Safety Roads,Oil pipe,
Border;.
(Border;.) Roads;(Oil pipe,
Gas pipe,Air
traffic,Pass
traff.,Border)
(Oil pipe;.) Railway;Ports,
Pass traff..
Pass traff.,Oil
pipe; ICT netw.;
Ports,Gas pipe.
1 Logistical developments items: Alternative measures (10 pcs): Railway connection and traffic, Harbours and harbours ac-
tivities, Roads and road transportation, Oil pipe and maintenance services, Gas pipe and maintenance service, Electricity
transfer lines, ICT networks and services, Air traffic and services, Passenger traffic on road, Border crossing services.
situation in the Middle East increase the oil price).
On the other hand strong trends create demand
conditions and by reacting on these it is possible
on various acting levels to create the most suitable
conditions for the development of the clusters.
The most central regional theories have been
collected by Hyttinen and Rautio (Tykkyläinen &
Neil 1995; Hyttinen et al. 2002: 20–21; Rautio
2003: 60–61). Here I preliminarily discuss the ap-
plicability of the theories on the development of
the Murmansk Oblast during 1992–2005. The ob-
jective is to find the most explanatory theories for
a closer analyse. I make in my applicability evalu-
ation special use of the Delphi panel evaluation of
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 71The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
Fig. 7. The main oil and gas
pipe in the North West Rus-
sia and plans brought up dur-
ing the last years showing
extension of the main pipe
and development of the har-
bour network. Reprinted
from Tykkyläinen (2003a)
with permission.
which SPT trends at this moment have the strong-
est impact on the development of Murmansk Ob-
last.
As a conclusion of my tentative analysis and in-
terpretation it can be stated that the following the-
ories give support to the development of Mur-
mansk Oblast during the last years moderately or
much except the following theories: innovative
milieu, regulationism, institutionalism and Keyne-
sian application. The resources and physical envi-
ronment and the supply policy theory may explain
development best, which is only getting an ”ex-
plains much” index. Equilibrium seeking, technol-
ogy and innovation, global capitalism and transi-
tion, globalisation and product cycles also reach
almost to the same explanatory level.
The number of the theories can change in the
future. Based on the interview material of the Del-
phi panel it can be anticipated that the weight of
the globalisation trend would rise the most. There-
72 FENNIA 184: 1 (2006)Yrjö Myllylä
Fig. 8. The research material
in the article has been mod-
elled according to the above
figure. Later on the explana-
tion of various theories of
area development should be
tested on the modelled mate-
rial.
fore those theories, where the explanatory element
was based on the globalisation trend could explain
the future development still better.
Conclusions
Strong prospective trends prepare the ground for
the economic environment in Murmansk Oblast.
The most important main trends prevailing at this
moment are, according to the majority of the re-
spondents, technological development, logistical
flows, and globalisation. The respondents of the
independent group of the Murmansk panel em-
phasise the globalisation trend, the value-based
trends and trends of the socio-economical devel-
opment of the population. The international panel
again considers the trends of technological devel-
opment, of globalisation, of the socio-economical
development of the population as the most impor-
tant trends at this moment.
These three most important trends seem accord-
ing to the panels to most clearly support the need
of the development of transportation and logistical
services clusters. The mining and metal processing
cluster seems to be the second in importance on
the basis of the main trends according to all re-
spondent groups except the group called the three
independent persons. The energy cluster is empha-
sised in particular by the representatives of the ex-
isting clusters in the Murmansk panel, the Interna-
tional panel, and the Moscow panel. The inde-
pendent respondents of the international panel
and Murmansk panel also emphasise the develop-
ment of ICT and tourism clusters.
Federal and regional levels are both important
decision-making levels for the development of the
clusters and logistics. Naturally it depends on the
development objects of the clusters and logistics
on which level the particular emphasis is placed
on the decision-making. Based on the results the
importance of the co-operation between the re-
gional and the federal level, and to some extent
also international co-operation, is emphasised.
The analysis gives some hints, how the trends
are felt to be acting depends on the interest group
that the respondent represents (Kuusi 1999: 193–
206). In the future, the analysis scenarios should
be created per respondent group by choosing
those trends which each respondent group empha-
sises as their choice for starting point and evalu-
ates the causal relations acting on the trends and
on the development of the clusters in the context
of regional development theory.
The explanation of the regional theories was
evaluated based on the implemented development
specially impacting the assessment of the special-
ists. The resources and physical environment and
supply policy theories seems to be the most ex-
planatory ones.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author specialises in Delphi research and appli-
cations and area foresight. This research work is part
of the research project ”Does the Geography of Rus-
sian Northern Peripheries Really Change?”. This
project is administrated by the University of Joensuu
and funded by the Academy of Finland (contact
FENNIA 184: 1 (2006) 73The future of Murmansk Oblast assessed by three Delphi panels
number 208149). In this project there are researchers
from Finland, Russia, Germany and Australia. The
project and this particular part of the project is being
done in co-operation with the Barents Centre for So-
cial Research and Dr. Oleg Andreev, who is also pro-
fessor of the Baltic Institute for Ecology, Politics and
Law. The implementation of the research work is part
of the preparation of my doctoral thesis in human ge-
ography, which is supervised by Professor Markku
Tykkyläinen. It is anticipated that the research project
will be completed within four years. The completion
of the subproject is planned for 2007 when the doc-
toral dissertation will be defined.
REFERENCES
British Petroleum (2005). Statistical review of world
energy 2005. . 15.5.2006.
Brunstad B, E Magnus, P Swanson, G Hønneland & I
Øverland (2004). Big oil playground, Russian bear
preserve or European periphery? The Russian Bar-
ents Sea Region towards 2015. 212 p. Eburon
Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.
Didyk V, L Riabova & J Autto (2005). Murmanskin
lääni vuoden ensimmäisellä puoliskolla. Marras-
kuu 2005. Talouden puolivuotiskatsaus. . 2.5.2006.
Filippov P, G Dudarev & A Osipov (2003). Energy:
raw materials, production, technology. Competi-
tive analysis of Northwest Russian energy cluster.
ETLA B 197. 210 p.
Hyttinen P, M Niskanen, A Ottitsch, M Tykkyläinen &
J Väyrynen (2002). Forest related perspectives for
regional development in Europe. European Forest
Institute Research Report 13. 129 p.
Kauppala P (1998). The Russian North: the rise, evo-
lution and current condition of state settlement
policy. Studies in the Northern Dimension 2.
48 p.
Kuusi O (1999). Expertise in the future use of generic
technologies – epistemic and methodological
considerations concerning Delphi studies. Gov-
ernment Institute for Economic Research, Re-
search Reports 59. 268 p.
Lausala T & L Valkonen (eds.) (1999). Economic ge-(1999). Economic ge-
ography and structure of the Russian Territories of
the Barents Region. University of Lapland, Arctic
Centre Reports 31. 250 p.
Malmberg A & P Maskell (2002). The elusive concept
of localisation economies: towards a knowledge-
based theory of spatial clustering. Environment
and Planning A 34, 429–449.
Murmansk region in figures (2004). State Committee
of the Russian Federation on Statistics. Murmansk
Region Committee of the State Statistics.
Oldberg I (2000). Russia’s Western Border Regions
and Moscow: the roots of regionalism. In Oldberg
I & J Hedenskog (eds.). In dire straits: Russia’s
Western Regions between Moscow and the West,
11–53. Defence Research Establishment, Stock-
holm.
Porter EM (1990). The competitive advantage of na-
tions. 875 p. Free Press, New York.
Rautio V (2003). The potential for community restruc-
turing – mining towns in Pechenga. Kikimora Pub-
lications A:9. 168 p.
Rautio V & O Andreev (2005). Social restructurisation
of mining industry in Pechenga District of the
Murmansk Region. 80 p. Barents centre for Social
Research and Murmansk Institute of Humanities.
Sackman H (1975). Delphi critique, the Rand Corpo-
ration. 146 p. Lexington Books, Toronto.
Slaughter R (1996). Futures consepts. In Slaughter R
(ed). The knowledge base of futures studies. Vol 1:
Foundations, 87–126. DDM Media Group, Haw-
torn, Victoria.
Toivonen M (2004). Expertise as business: long term
development and future prospect of knowledge-
intensive business services (KIBS). Helsinki Uni-
versity of Technology, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Doctoral disserta-
tion series 2004/2. 287 p.
Tykkyläinen M (2003a). Geographical dimension of
Russian energy developments. 19 p. Paper pre-
sented at the European Regional Science Congress
27.–30.8.2003.
Tykkyläinen M (2003b). North-West Russia as a gate-
way in Russian energy geopolitics. Fennia 181: 2,
145–177.
Tykkyläinen M & C Neil (1995). Socio-economic re-
structuring in resource communities: evolving a
comparative approach. Community Development
Journal 30: 1, 31–47.
Tyroff M (1975). The policy Delphi. In Linstone H &
M Tyroff (eds.). The Delphi method: techniques an
applications, 84–101. Addison-Wesley, London.